F1 has its Drag Reduction System and Indycar last week introduced controversial double-file rolling restarts.
Gimmicks like this have one end in mind: “improving the show” and getting more television viewers.
But are good television and good motor racing always the same thing? Should motor sport be chasing better TV ratings?
Melbourne saw introduction of F1’s Drag Reduction System – a performance boost which is controversial because it’s only available to drivers when they’re trying to overtake.
Many F1 Fanatic readers have made it clear they feel depriving the leading driver of the ability to defend his position crosses the line between a sporting contest and a contrived spectacle.
On the same day IndyCar introduced its latest change to boost the entertainment value of its races: making drivers line up two-abreast for restarts.
The result was a first lap crash, followed by a restart, then another crash, another restart, and so on until they’d had four separate full-course cautions in the first 15 laps.
“Improving the show” is the depressing catchphrase of the time for both F1 and IndyCar. But the signs are its working.
IndyCar enjoyed its highest post-unification TV ratings on Sunday. Here in Britain the number of people getting up in the small hours to watch he Australian Grand Prix has doubled since 2008.
Amusingly, one detractor of F1’s approach to increasing overtaking is five-times NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson. He told his Twitter followers last week: “I’m so glad we have great racing and don’t need moveable wings and buttons to push for more power like F1.” (See Monday’s round-up for more on this).
There is nothing F1 can teach NASCAR about sacrificing racing purity and, arguably, safety, in the pursuit of television audiences.
The particular dangers of open-wheel racing make it unlikely that F1 would ever go to NASCAR extremes. But plenty of reader of this site have already voiced concerns that in DRS F1 has gone too far in its attempts to win over casual viewers.
Making the sport and spectacle better need not be mutually exclusive. Sunday also saw F1’s long-overdue first broadcast in high definition which is clearly a step forward for all fans.
The value of attracting more TV viewers is obvious. But is F1 in danger of sacrificing part of its core appeal as the pinnacle of motor racing by doing so?
It’s not hard to see DRS as the thing end of the wedge that could lead to other forms of levelling the playing field, such as success ballast. That may look good to the casual fan but it destroys any notion of fair racing.
Has F1 already gone too far to attract casual fans? Has DRS changed your opinion of the sport? Share your thoughts below.
Debates and polls
- Will Alonso win a world championship title with Aston Martin?
- How long should Red Bull give Ricciardo to prove he’s not lost his touch?
- Were stewards right to penalise Alonso over his driving before Russell’s crash?
- Are Williams right to bench Sargeant so Albon can race after crash?
- Is the FIA right to make ten seconds the new standard for penalties?
- Which F1 drivers will beat their team mates in 2024?
- Has anyone caught Red Bull? 20 questions for the 2024 Formula 1 season
- Which F1 team has the best livery in 2024?
- Does F1 now need rules to reverse the rise of colourless cars?
- Will Lewis Hamilton win a world championship for Ferrari?
Stephen Jones (@aus_steve)
30th March 2011, 10:17
well firstly johnson needs to be told the difference between good racing, and turning left..
we could do without the DRS.. but at the moment, F1’s going alright in a ratings sense..
if it aint broke, don’t fix it?
Gambit
30th March 2011, 10:39
The premier of any show/sport and the finale always has the highest ratings. I wouldn’t read too much into it for for F1 or IndyCar.
Damon (@damon)
30th March 2011, 11:31
AUS_Steve, you should be told the difference between good racing on a oval and boring racing on any other track.
Stephen Jones (@aus_steve)
30th March 2011, 12:01
my comment was a bit light-hearted, so don’t take much thought into it..
I respect oval racers for that they do.
But it seems a bit tight of Jimmie Johnson to be attacking another sport.. It’s like someone bagging cricket because its too slow paced.. oh wait, i do that all the time! (it’s ok, i’m a cricket fan!).
wow that got off-topic.. but what i’m trying to say is that i value drivers working hard for their passes and positions.. not just driving past with a bit of slipstream
Robbie (@robbie)
30th March 2011, 14:48
Not sure JJ is attacking F1…being a racer he probably respects F1 drivers a lot…I just think he is saying what a lot of F1 fans have said…too many buttons and gadgets…simplify and go racing…I think JJ is just glad they don’t have the same gadgetry going on…a steering wheel full of buttons…they don’t have that and the racing is tight…
Also, it is a huge oversimplification to say ‘driving past with a bit of slipstream’ and the opposite side of that if you care to look at it is that one can get passed due to slipstream just as easily as one can do the passing because of it…so don’t think they aren’t working just as hard to keep from getting passed as they are in attempting to pass…
As far as ‘the show’ goes, Nascar can have any one of a dozen or so guys potentially win a race…in F1 it is likely a small handful…ie. much more predictable…
Nascar rarely has a driver run away from the field, rarely has a parade all race-day afternoon…
Imho, F1 should get rid of the gadgets, restrict their aero usage and while they have their slicks back, put the cars back into a mode of mechanical grip rather than relying so much on downforce which inevitably means that such aero dependancy handcuffs a driver in dirty air…simplify, stabilize the rules, limit aero, and before long it will be any one of 10 guys that could win an F1 race, rather than 3 or 4…
That kind of unpredictability would draw more audience, imho…after all, BE wants the unpredictability that wetting the track brings…I say bring on the unpredictability without gimmicks…it’s easily done with some sensible decisions…
manifold
30th March 2011, 19:30
Unpredictability is precisely the thing which shows that nascar is just a parade until the last pit stop. All the drivers ride around waiting for the last stop and THEN the “race” actually starts… Unless their is a caution and then the race starts, unless it is on the last lap in which case they add length to the race distance. Getting back to my original point. Domination is exactly the thing that shows it is a real contest. Michael Schumacher won all those races because he was a better driver in a better car than the rest of the field, he deserved to win. In most nascar races that I have seen the pit strategy/team/driver cannot win when the circumstances of the day do not fall in their favor (luck). In F1 it is almost always the case that the fastest driver with the fastest/most reliable car and the best pit strategy win the race. I don’t think that you can argue against that point.
Ronman
30th March 2011, 12:03
I think DRS is unnecessary, but KERS could counter it on the defense when the drivers finally get to grips with alternating both systems.
as for F1 needing more excitment, since 2008 it’s been super exciting, almost had a heart attack in Brazil 08, and was on the edge of my couch slipping on many races last years and the year before, the race long duel between fisichella and Raikkonen at Spa was refreshing in 09…and the collection of gates (spy, lie, diffuse etc…[excluding crashgate, now that was disgusting]) keep me entertained in between races..
i dont see the need for artificial enhancements. and i like the current points system so it’s all good.
damonsmedley (@damonsmedley)
30th March 2011, 13:23
Here’s a thought. Why not reverse the order in which DRS and KERS are permitted to be used in? I enjoyed the spectacle of qualifying with the driver opening and closing the wing to improve top-speed. I didn’t think I would, but I did enjoy qualifying with the DRS.
As KERS is limited, why not change it so it can only be used in a designated overtaking zone when less than 1 second behind? At least then we can see the drivers making full use of the DRS. In qualifying, it actually added an extra dimension. The drivers were able to use it whenever they wanted, but there was a fine line as to when it was safe enough to open the flap and, as we saw with Sutil, it is easy to misjudge. If it means the drivers have to be smart about opening and closing the flap to be quick, then it appeals to me. The only thing that could let it down is the fact the driver would perhaps become tired from constantly pressing a button for 2 hours…
Watching in Melbourne, I couldn’t help but feel the FIA had it the wrong way around.
Steph (@)
30th March 2011, 13:27
Interesting idea Damon and maybe you’re right but as I’m comnpletely against the limits placed upon DRS in the first place so it’s a no from me sorry :P
damonsmedley (@damonsmedley)
30th March 2011, 13:33
@Steph I know, but without limits, the system might as well not be there. :P If they are going to have it there to improve straight-line speeds, so be it, but other than that, I agree. F1 shouldn’t need any overtaking aids whatsoever. 2010 and every season before that (excluding ’09, with Ferrari and McLaren’s KERS) was fine. The FIA needs to look after its fans, of whom there are plenty. They certainly don’t need to be pushing to increase the fan-base!
Ben Curly
30th March 2011, 13:36
This.
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 13:07
manifold…have to disagree…the drivers don’t just drive around waiting for the last pit…they have spent the day tweeking the car with each pit stop, and of course given the length of the races they aren’t trying to win the thing in the first half…
I should correct myself on something though…I said that Nascar races carry any one of at least a dozen guys that could win each race, whereas only a few can realistically win a F1 race, making Nascar less predictable, but that said, Jimmie Johnson has won multiple Championships in a row, so he has dominated…so I guess you would agree that that shows it is a real contest…and that in fact JJ and his team have had on average the best driver in the best car with the best pit strategy…
As to MS dominating, that form of domination turned millions away from F1 as they realized that everything about F1 in his Ferrari era was skewed toward him, and there was no racing between he and his teammate like there was as one example between Senna and Prost when we knew every weekend that a Mac would likely win, we just didn’t know which one…many got bored of the predictability of MS’s domination, and many like myself got turned off when we learned more and more the reasons for said domination went way beyond him just being a good driver with a good car, and instead was about him having a contracted subservient teammate, Ferrari getting an extra 100 mill a year from FIA/FOM just because they are Ferrari, 3 seats at the boardroom table to the other teams’ one, ie. veto power on any rule changes, designer car, designer tires, and unethical behaviour that the FIA never penalised in a way that would harm MS’s WDC chance in any given year…
aja
2nd April 2011, 1:12
Racing on ovals is an oxymoron
Ben N
30th March 2011, 10:20
There are many people who watch motor sport for many reasons. Some watch for the danger, some for the overtaking, some for the speed and some for unpredictability.
You can’t satisfy all of them…
PJ
30th March 2011, 11:26
Don’t forget the guys that say this either:
topdowntoedown (@topdowntoedown)
30th March 2011, 12:13
Why not?
I’ve always thought that it was the equivalent of only watching nature problems to see the gazelle get eaten by the lion.
Weird, in other words.
topdowntoedown (@topdowntoedown)
30th March 2011, 12:14
Oops… That’ll be nature programmes, of course.
Fixy (@)
30th March 2011, 15:08
That’s exactly where I wanted to go. People with so little intelligence to comprehend that crashes, while not always, especially today, may put drivers at risk of injuries, are not worty of having the sport we love changed to satisfy them and ruin it for us.
Crashes certainly give the spectator a thrill, but the main point of racing is to drive a car faster than others, not crash, and win races. If drivers crashed continuously then we would be watching incompetent drivers, the opposite of what we should.
newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1)
30th March 2011, 19:06
If you want incompetent drivers, just watch indycar, last weekends race was ridiculous. somebody sohuld explain to them that 5 cars side-by-side do not go into one corner.
Fixy (@)
30th March 2011, 20:17
That’s why F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport and IndyCar not.
Fixy (@)
30th March 2011, 21:10
There are many racing series, if someone doesn’t like F1 he can look at something else rather than ruin our sport.
Mike
31st March 2011, 8:10
Fixy, F1 despite you liking it or not is a business, and it’s up to the operators, i.e. Bernie and co. to try and attract as many viewers as possible, even if they are not up to your standards. That’s reality.
Crashes, like passes and other exciting events, are interesting. Even, if it’s for all the wrong reasons.
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
30th March 2011, 20:19
I would have thought that crashes might be something which initially attracts some people to motorsport, but few people would continue watching just for the crashes. They would either become interested in the racing bit between the crashes, or get bored and not bother watching again.
newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1)
30th March 2011, 20:34
well tonio liuzzi backwards at fuji ’07 was what caught my attention. And them from 2008 onwards I’ve been a bit of a fanatic.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
30th March 2011, 10:25
Great issue to discuss. I don’t have a lot of time to write a full response so I’ll just say this:
We are all on this site because we are F1 Fanatics. Chances are, we’ve been Fanatics for the majority of our lives, even from our childhood. Whatever it was about this sport that captivated us so, it was something other than super-degrading tyres, one-shot qualifying, moveable rear wings, bizarre aerodynamic packages or Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems – it was knowing that we were watching 22 of the greatest drivers in the world racing in the greatest machines in the world around the greatest tracks in the world. It’s not the overtaking per se, it’s the entire dynamic of Formula 1 – the teams, the money, the glamour, the drivers, the fights, the battles, the strategies and even the sight of men having horrendous looking accidents at 300kmh only to get out and walk away unaided. Processions may not be overly exciting, for sure, but if you keep in mind that even when overtaking is scarce, you’re still watching a group of phenomenally skilled athletes pushing man and machine to the very limit – and that in itself is a spectacle that not many other sports can provide.
As long as F1 stays true to itself and its history, its heritage, its traditions, there will always be a legion of future Fanatics that will be created with every new generation.
dennis (@dennis)
30th March 2011, 11:40
I totally agree. The problem is – and I experienced this with many things – the real fans usually keep rather quiet and enjoy, while those who don’t really watch it anyway are the loudest to shout it’s boring and has to be changed.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see more overtaking in F1 as well, but as you mentioned, back in the day when I started watching F1 drivers overtook because they were faster and pushed through.
All these artificial systems take something away from the sport, something that people like Senna, Schumacher and Häkkinen were great at. I wish the FIA would concentrate on what actually IS the problem, mainly the dirty air in corners and the low amount of slipstream on the straights, rather than trying to find ways to give one driver an artificial advantage.
BarnstableD (@barnstabled)
30th March 2011, 12:08
COuld you not argue that the aeros on the cars these days are more extreme – cause more dirty air – makes cars harder to follow and overtake – DRS just compensates for this?
I never saw it as DRS giving the overtaker the advantage, just levelling the playing field.
dennis (@dennis)
30th March 2011, 12:41
It depends. To a point I agree, but the traveling driver has a disadvantage in the corner before the straight and gets this back (to a point) on the straight. Which shifts the crucial moment of overtaking a bit towards the straight.
I would simply love to see cars like in the old days giving a huge slipstream due to simplified rear wings.
BazL
31st March 2011, 10:36
I’m also in total agreement. We don’t need DRS if we allow the cars to develop in such a manner as to increase the slipstream area at the rear of the leading car. Getting through the dirty air when the drivers are about a second behind would appear to be getting more and more difficult. What has been created here is a mechanical system to overcome a design flaw
John H
30th March 2011, 18:32
You’re totally right of course Barnstable.
Wider tyres and limit the depth of the front wing winglet zone, and DRS really isn’t necessary.
DRS is plastering over a large crack with a small elastoplast (or whatever the phrase is).
maestroninthesky
30th March 2011, 12:50
I hear you!
Vanja
30th March 2011, 11:51
i agree completly, last season was not so interesting because of the new rules, it was interesting because of the 4-way championship battle. formula1 is interesting because it is surprising, something unexpected always happens. i don’t know why do they want to increase ratings, don’t they say formula1 has 550 million viewers every year???? formula is great and always has been
Ronman
30th March 2011, 12:06
Enough said Magnificent Geoffrey!!! great comment.
Steph (@)
30th March 2011, 12:58
Beautiful comment Mag.
To quote Murray Walker (badly as I can’t remember it word for word) “there is such thing as processional race but there is no such thing as a dull F1 race”
damonsmedley (@damonsmedley)
30th March 2011, 13:06
Brilliant comment. F1 doesn’t need constant change at all. A friend of mine last year, when I asked him what he made of the Bahrain Grand Prix (he isn’t an F1 fan, by the way) he said he couldn’t see any problem with it and the speed of the cars is enough to keep him captivated, even if the overtaking was lacking. And that’s what keeps us fans watching. The ‘fans’ that are calling for more overtaking aren’t really fans at all.
US_Peter (@us_peter)
30th March 2011, 18:47
Agreed.
And as far as the DRS goes, if the wings are limited severely once ground effect comes back in two years, there should be less aero disturbance, and better slipstreaming, which will eliminate the need for the DRS altogether. I view it as a stop-gap to allow slipstreaming until the new Formula comes in 2013. If the FIA doesn’t overdo it and allow DRS zones that are too long, then I’m fine with it how it is. It certainly didn’t ruin the race in Australia.
joac21 (@joac21)
31st March 2011, 0:10
they should improve tv shots to make the feel of speed even greater. THAAAT would make a difference
paulipedia (@paulipedia)
31st March 2011, 13:45
But unfortunately you cannot truly grasp this unless you go and watch a race live where you can see, feel the energy and soke up the atmosphere.
Processions are a bit dull on TV.
Adam Tate (@adam-tate)
31st March 2011, 10:20
Goeffrey, that was in a word, magnificent. You summed up exactly why F1 has the appeal it does. I watched the race last weekend with my half asleep girlfriend and answered all her questions about it, saying how it is interesting from so many different angles and that’s what makes it exciting, because they are all striving to be the best, to be the fastest form of racing on the planet.
Hare
30th March 2011, 10:25
That’s not what’s going on here with the DRS.
DRS is there is counteract or neutralise the negative affects of being in the dirty air of the driver in front.
The cause was, drivers that were faster than the car in front, sometimes up and over 1 second faster, would get caught in the turbulent air, lose down force and thus suffer a *decrease* in speed. The *unfair advantage* in these cases goes the the leading driver, as the chasing driver is penalised.
The DRS, counteracts that problem by giving some speed back to the chasing driver.
As we saw in Aus, drivers behind other drivers did not automagically overtake any car in front. Only cars that were faster at the moment in time had the negative effects of turbulent air somewhat negated by the DRS, allowing them a decent run to over take the car in front.
The idea that DRS is depriving the leading driver of defend his position is nonsense. Massa showed clearly a driver of decent ability AND a slower car can defend his position admirably.
Net gain? We saw a much more balanced struggle, more usually seen in lower formulas than we have seen for some time in F1.
Massa vs Button, was a personal highlight of Australia for me, and I’ll gladly watch it again.
CRM
30th March 2011, 10:47
I agree. Everyone complained that once car were within one second of the one in front overtaking became near-impossible because of the turbulance no one liked this so DRS is an attempt to remedy this situation.Let’s at least give it a chance.
SirCoolbeans (@sircoolbeans)
30th March 2011, 10:51
Absolutely, I was worried about DRS, but it worked exactly as I had hoped it would.
The highlight of the grand prix was the battle between Massa and Button.
The DRS didn’t make the pass easy but allowed the battle to continue as Jenson could regain ground lost to reduced downforce every lap. We had a good prolonged fight for position, last year the car behind would loose it’s chance and fall back.
Hare
30th March 2011, 11:06
..or be forced to fall back due to the concern over damaging the tyres, or overheating the car due to lack of clean airflow entering the sidepods.
Damon (@damon)
30th March 2011, 11:35
Nonsense.
Being in the dirty air has its effect in the corners, where you lose grip – not on the straights. DRS doesn’t neutralise that, but it gives an advantage on the straights where you get the benefit from being behind another car anyway.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
30th March 2011, 11:59
If you get a benefit from being behind another car, why do so many cars struggle when they close within a second of the car in front?
Bernard (@bernard)
30th March 2011, 12:37
Downforce is not only desirable in corners, it affects traction throughout the circuit.
In a straight line, a car with less downforce will accelerate slower. Being in a tow may counter that to some extent but evidently not enough in F1’s areo dominated world.
So your benefit of being behind another car suddently becomes a neutral or even a negative.
SteveH
30th March 2011, 13:02
I disagree. If you are going in a straight line then the limiting factor for acceleration is wheelspin. If you are not spinning the wheels then you will accelerate at exactly the same rate as a car with more downforce, or possibly quicker if generating downforce causes more drag.
Bernard (@bernard)
30th March 2011, 15:12
Steve your conclusions are illogical, if you push a wheel into the road you increase traction.
Downforce increase the effective weight on the wheels and therefore increases traction – hence the term downforce.
By your reasoning, wheelspin and traction are unrelated – which of course isn’t true.
JerseyF1
30th March 2011, 20:14
Isn’t Steve’s point that since there is more than enough traction on the straight anyway having more doesn’t help. The next limiting factor to acceleration is then drag and the car behind has less of that.
Since being directly behind another car reduces downforce due to the dirty airflow Bernard’s suggestion would be to move out of the slipstream which is exactly the opposite to the convention in all motor racing series.
Bernard (@bernard)
30th March 2011, 21:27
JerseyF1, you can never have enough traction, it is fundamental to F1 and is ultimately what the car is designed for.
As for my alleged suggestion, I said it’s a balancing act – and one that’s not as simple as some would make out.
F1 cars are not equal to begin with, the amount of downforce varies from car to car and so does the engine power and mapping, the gear ratios, the drag loss from DRS and the performance gained from KERS.
It all comes down to maximising traction.
With specific regards to slipstreaming, this can only occur when you are within a few feet of the car infront. This is exactly what DRS is designed to achieve.
But in short, if your car with DRS activated has less traction than the car in front you might not close on it before the zone ends and bearing in mind the differentiating factors mentioned above, there are permutations were you may never close on the car in front – welcome to F1. :)
graigchq (@graigchq)
31st March 2011, 6:12
nope, bernard is right here. downforce helps with acceleraton on straights as well as in corners
OEL
30th March 2011, 12:48
“Being in the dirty air has its effect in the corners, where you lose grip – not on the straights. DRS doesn’t neutralise that, but it gives an advantage on the straights where you get the benefit from being behind another car anyway.”
So really, it’s the front wing that should be adjusted, but rather allowed to be increased by 25% (or whatever it is that is being lost) in the corner before the main straight, for the driver behind when being within, say, 2 seconds of another car. Or maybe whenever the driver wants to use it, because having 25% more front downforce when not in dirty air won’t make you faster.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
30th March 2011, 12:54
The drivers were allowed to use an adjustable front wing in 2009 and 2010.
No-one used it.
OEL
30th March 2011, 13:04
Because they were only allowed to use it very little, nowhere near enough to compensate. Also they did use it, but only for balancing the car over the varying amounts of fuel. If they would only be allowed to use it in the corner before the main straight, with a massive angel like 25% more, are you sure it wouldn’t be better?
glue (@glue)
30th March 2011, 13:04
they were using it, but there was not much of a difference to aid overtaking, so there was little mention of it..they ended up using it for adjusting the setup mid-race (with the fuel and grip levels changing)
Alianora La Canta
30th March 2011, 23:57
They all used it – for correcting imbalances in the car, not for its intended purpose of increasing overtaking, for the former proved more beneficial to overall performance than the latter.
graigchq (@graigchq)
31st March 2011, 6:13
they all used it, but not for overtaking, rather additional aid to balance like adjusting the brake bias
graigchq (@graigchq)
31st March 2011, 6:15
you’ve al played F1 2010 the game yes? the engineer tells you that the wing can be adjusted to gain additional speed on the straights, mentions nothing about it being used for overtaking
Icthyes (@icthyes)
30th March 2011, 13:45
Not nonsense at all.
Car goes into corner, loses speed because of wake. Car opens up DRS, speed is regained.
Ideally what they should have done is let the front and rear wings adjust to produce more downforce, so a driver could follow through the corner. This then becomes deactivated when they hit the accelerator again.
OEL
30th March 2011, 14:06
“Ideally what they should have done is let the front and rear wings adjust to produce more downforce, so a driver could follow through the corner. This then becomes deactivated when they hit the accelerator again.”
Why the rear wing? The car behind loses downforce at the front, not the rear (or at least almost nothing at the rear compared to the front).
Icthyes (@icthyes)
30th March 2011, 17:09
I would assume it would create an inbalance to only have the front wing adjust. But I could be wrong, so.
Geordie Porker
30th March 2011, 14:29
Damon,
An interesting comment this – in some ways you are right…the driver behind is slowed down through the corners. DRS only works on the straight.
BUT…the following driver cannot get the advantage you speak of on the straight because he was slowed down through the corner, so he never gets ‘a run’ on the driver in front to try an pass into the next corner.
So…DRS allows the following driver – if he’s fast enough in the corner before – to re-gain the slipstream down the straight and make it a fair fight into the next corner, where the following driver HAS to be faster to make the move stick.
You’ll note that most of the overtakes in fact occurred through the 2 corners which followed the DRS zone, not on the straight. Those that did occur on the straight were a result of better use of KERS by the chasing car (from what I saw of the on-screen graphics) as much as by DRS. In other words, the drivers started using ALL of the tools available to them to gain MAX advantage – as they should (and always will!).
For what it’s worth, I thought DRS was great – no guarantee of an overtake, but a better chance. It is the regulations around KERS which I have a bigger problem with – tell the teams to make it as big as they want and remove the “7s of KERS per lap” rule. Incidentally, this will (in my opinion) reduce the effect of DRS (see previous paragraph).
But that’s just my opinion! :)
Vishy
30th March 2011, 16:13
Just listen to Vettel, DRS let him get closer on straight (not overtake) and helped him overtake Button 2 corners down. So yes DRS is only there to counteract the negative effects off running in the dirty air.
paulipedia (@paulipedia)
31st March 2011, 13:47
Nonsense
Henry
30th March 2011, 11:36
Yes and no. Because DRS does not remove the disadvantage of being in dirty air – otherwise they would be able to use it all the way around the track. also one the drivers are fairly close to the leading driver on a straight, they can slipstream him anyway – since drs is only activated on the major straights of the tracks, its just like an extended slipstream. Ultimately its a talking point for the tv audiences, a selling point which is not necessary for the sport. F1 has always been about far more than just overtakes. and devaluing the overtakes that do take place is what DRS has achieved.
Hare (@hare)
31st March 2011, 0:27
I didn’t argue it removed the disadvantage of being in the dirty air.
I argued that :
In essence, trying to re-address the balance by giving the trailing driver some straight line speed to make up for the downforce he loses.
It’s not a perfect equation, but it does add extra elements for the driver to master and ultimately succeed or fail at.
Ultimately my opinion is that these extra elements of KERS and DRS argubly shift the balance somewhat from car performance to driver skills.
In the ‘good old days’ driver skill came to the fore with a manual gear lever, that allowed great drivers to make up time, and pressured drivers to lose time by missing gear changes and thus drive out of corners, or engine breaking in to them amongst other variations.
Modern cars are less demanding in the cockpit and give the drivers less areas to outperform others drivers in sheer talent, relying more on the quality of the package they have under them. Most of the package is electronically managed and drivers only need to adjust settings a fraction of the amount 80’s driver has to change gears with only one hand on the wheel.
In this day and age of computer games and technical wizardry, cars should have a few extras to give control of performance aspects back to the driver. They get the chance to show driving skills, timing, strategy and allow drivers to feel and apply more pressure mentally (mind games) leading to errors, and again, a greater scope for drivers to show themselves talented as well as fast.
Adam Tate (@adam-tate)
31st March 2011, 10:25
Here here Hare! I loved the Massa-Button battle, and it was only when Button has the triple blessing of a tow, the DRS and Kers was he able to blast past Massa at a considerable speed advantage, meaning using just one or two of such elements will not guarantee an overtake. I think we will have a lot of good passing in the coming races, maybe Massa will get his revenge in Malaysia, putting one over on Button as he did there last season.
jabg
30th March 2011, 10:29
ever watched a nascar race- so dull, and too much overtaking- F1 is the best :)
Hare
31st March 2011, 9:09
Yeah, I just wait for the end bit or the crashes :) But you do have a real feeling that the drivers are always trying because the action is constant
Homer
30th March 2011, 10:29
seems wrong to link the pile-up at the START with the new double-file RESTARTS… as they have had double-file starts for awhile (forever?), but now with the focus on restarts also, (and a tight first corner), some hot headed drivers (Andretti and Castroneves) royally screwed up…
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
30th March 2011, 10:37
I don’t think of it as baiting audiences. I think of it as giving them exactly what they want. For years, fans have been crying out for more and more overtaking. The DRS is the end product of that. They’re getting exctly what they want.
Their concerns are misplaced. The Australian Grand Prix demonstrated that the DRS does not guarantee a pass (which it was never intended to do). Rather, it is enough to put a driver in a position where he can attempt a pass when the aerodynamics of cars in front might limit his abilities. In that respect, I think the DRS has worked perfectly, even if the system needs tweaking. Offering the DRS to defending drivers will only limit overtaking.
Dan Thorn (@dan-thorn)
30th March 2011, 10:47
The DRS worked very well at Albert Park but will it be the same at other tracks? I reckon it’ll take a year or so to be fully optimised, but if the DRS can as well as it did in Melbourne on all ther other tracks then I think it will have been a success.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
30th March 2011, 10:50
I’m a bit worried that after the supermassive long straights at Sepang and Shanghai, we’ll be complaining that the DRS works too effectively on all the Tilke tracks.
SirCoolbeans (@sircoolbeans)
30th March 2011, 10:54
I assumed that what the zone limits were for. The FIA can set the DRS zone to be smaller than the length of the straights.
BasCB (@bascb)
30th March 2011, 10:57
I hope they don’t put it on for use on the whole of the straights there.
Albert park showed, how the DRS could be used to ofset the disadvantage of losing out over the last corner perfectly, but having a straigh, then a harping and a massive straight with DRS allowed, that will be too much, I think.
US_Peter (@us_peter)
30th March 2011, 19:12
Agreed. I hope they don’t overdo the DRS zone.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
30th March 2011, 11:04
The biggest problems with dirty air are caused in fast corners, not on straights. A disrupted airflow destabilises the trailing car meaning the driver can’t take fast corners as quickly.
The final corner at Albert Park is quite fast, which means that the trailing driver is disadvantaged going onto the straight, DRS or no DRS. I wonder whether having the DRS on straights following a slow corner (such as the start/finish straight at Sepang) will make people think again about whether it is “too effective.”
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
30th March 2011, 11:08
If I were in Charlie Whiting’s position, the first thing I would do at Sepang is make both straights DRS zones. Yes, it will probably produce a race with too much overtaking, but it would also give massive amounts of data at the opposite end of the spectrum to Albert Park. From then on, the DRS could be tailored appropriately for each circuit. It might mean one race with to much overtaking, but it would enable the Powers That Be to get the optimal level of passing sooner rather than later.
infy (@infy)
30th March 2011, 12:00
Agreed. I also think its fair to mention that even though some one might be overtaken easier, they will have the same opportunity to get their position back on the next lap.
I for one would love to watch a race were drivers (or trains of drivers) switched positions every lap. It would make it exciting, and the better cars would end up ahead as it would come down to who ever can pull the greatest gap during the cornery bits of the track.
Steph (@)
30th March 2011, 13:08
For me, the biggest problem isn’t how effective the DRS is or isn’t. I care more about the method than the end product so I’ll never like the DRS in principle. However, as I can’t be bothered to moan every race I suppose I’ll give it a chance :P
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
31st March 2011, 13:01
The main straight in Melbourne is 867m long, and the drivers were just barely able to make a pass work. The longest straight made by Tilke is 1,200m long (Abu Dhabi). I don’t think the extra 333m is going to be enough to make the DRS hyper-effective.
Damon (@damon)
30th March 2011, 11:37
Swapping cars’ positions by a push of a button is not what I call overtaking.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
30th March 2011, 11:53
But that’s not what they’re doing at all. Pressing the button does not guarantee a pass. All it does is give the driver a small speed boost, enough to put them in a position where they can make a pass. If you watched the Australian Grand Prix, the drivers were only drawing level with one another when they got into the braking zone of the first corner. It’s exactly the same as the F-duct last year: it does the same thing, just slightly differently.
I’m willing to bet that if there was no DRS, you’d be bemoaning the lack of overtaking. Even now, you’re twisting the facts into too-simple generalistaions for the sake of justifying your dislike of the system when it’s fairly obvious you haven’t even noticed it in action.
Bigbadderboom (@bigbadderboom)
30th March 2011, 18:14
Agreed PM. FIA are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I would rather some mistakes through actively trying to improve the racing as opposed to doing nothing. As long as DRS is given an amount of time over given circuits and reviewed properly then why not? Some people just like to moan without adding constructively to the debate. The fact is there isn’t a simple answer, there are some of the best engineering brains in the world working in F1 and this is as much their idea as the FIA, I say give it a chance.
Prisoner Monkeys
31st March 2011, 3:41
Well, they probably could have handled it a little better by fully detailing the DRS when it was first announced. All we got was “there will be an adjustable rear wing to improve overtaking”, and that was about it. This led to everyone establishing their own ideas about it, ususally to justify not liking it, and most of which have been demonstrated to be wrong. The DRS is no different to the F-duct; it is simply applied differently in the same way that Renault’s frontal exhausts are exhausts, only different to the systems everyone else has developed.
Damon (@damon)
31st March 2011, 13:24
But this does NOT justify it.
You cannot say something that is unfair is OK only because it is not 100% efficient.
You could allow one team in a football game to kick their opponents legally. This would not make them be able to prevent the other team from scoring every time that other teams attacks. But this doesn’t make it OK.
larkim
31st March 2011, 13:46
F1 is no different than other sports tweaking their rules to pass an advantage to one team or another – e.g. backpass rule in football, introduced to prevent the defending team taking advantage of the fact that they could pass to their ‘keeper when under pressure. It happens.
The evidence so far is that it didn’t really change much, and the only people that could possibly benefit are drivers who are actually in a faster package than the car in front (otherwise they wouldn’t be within 1 sec would they, in normal circumstances).
Matt
Hare
31st March 2011, 9:11
What race series are you watching? I think you’re confusing F1 with Mario Kart.
Adam Tate (@adam-tate)
31st March 2011, 10:31
As much as F1 is my favorite, I have always hoped for a real life version of Mario Kart :)
Tiomkin
30th March 2011, 10:37
There is a spelling mistake in the penultimate paragraph Keith.
My take on the gimmicks is that there should be unrestricted use. I know they are tweaking DRS but why not have mores places where it can be used?
vjanik
30th March 2011, 10:43
i think we have to think of the DRS in a different way.
in the old days, the car behind had an advantage because it could take advanatage of the slipstream of the car infront. this still works in stock car racing or motorbikes. i saw a race in moto gp where drivers did not want to be leading in the last lap becasue they would be overtaken by a slipstreaming competitor.
this advantage has been virtually negated with the ever increasing downforce of F1 cars over the years. and thus the dirty air created by the leading car puts the follower at a disadvantage.
the DRS is a tool that tries to level this out once again and give the following car the advanatge it used to have in the past.
so in this sense i dont have a problem with it. plus it is much cheaper than KERS or completely re-thinking the rule book (which will probably happen after 2012)
BasCB (@bascb)
30th March 2011, 10:44
As far as the DRS is concerned it showed to be just about to do what it was brought in to do. As Hare writes, it helps by making running close to the guy in front less damaging to a cars speed.
Still I hate the idea of actually feeling the need for that. Instead of adressing the real problem, i.e. being far to reliant on downforce in the first place.
I think F1 is quite exiting and worth watching without a load of passes. Then again, if Seb is going to win races start to finish, the FOM must certainly start showing us all action on track and mix that with nice footage of drivers hustling their cars around on the edge.
I enjoyed the footage of Alonso having to work the wheel to go fast. We saw hardly any in car footage of Vettel going on edge. And we missed a third of the overtakes on track, again.
Certainly it got more pure without refuelling, and having tyres that seem to allow for diverse strategy to get to the font is good. Even more if it rewards drivers skills.
xtophe (@xtophe)
30th March 2011, 15:50
DRS seems no more than a stop-gap to me. Let’s hope the ‘real’ problems are dealt with by 2013.
US_Peter (@us_peter)
31st March 2011, 0:03
Me too. I think the DRS is intended only to try and minimize the “dirty air” with the current aero regs. I doubt it will stay in the regulations for 2013 when wings are massively reduced.
graigchq (@graigchq)
31st March 2011, 6:24
many people have mentioned, the “real problem” of being too reliant on aero, but if we reduce aero then the other haters who are proclaiming that F1 is slowing down to GP2 levels of speed will also bark up with their concerns. F1 cars go round at such high speed, BECAUSE of this aero, and lower formulae, like LM where aero is not so important may have fast lap times, but only because their engines are so huge in comparison. It’s a bit of one and a bit of the other. If the aero is reduced too much, and this dirty air problem is removed, then the ultimate laptime will be that of the lower formulae, and we’ll end up in a situation where F1 is not F1. DRS is here, just like massive downforce and people like Adrian Newey are here. This is F1, it changes all the time and long may that continue.
Adam Tate (@adam-tate)
31st March 2011, 10:38
If they use ground effect aerodynamics for the 2013 and beyond regs, the cars will be able to have smaller wings, but have just as much downforce, it will just be generated by the body of the car instead of its wings, thus maintaining high cornering speeds, whilst facilitation a high rate of overtaking.
This is what ultimately has to happen for F1.
devotee
30th March 2011, 10:51
Can anyone explain me what exactly is double file restart?
RIISE (@riise)
30th March 2011, 11:14
http://www.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/06/06/preview.cup.pocono.double.file.reactions/index.html
The image shows a double file restart.
BasCB (@bascb)
30th March 2011, 11:18
It means there is not one line of cars, but two lines with nr. 2 next to nr. 1 so they are tighter together.
Steve
30th March 2011, 10:55
sure, DRS gives an advantage to the car behind, but the invisible turbulent air also gives a huge advantage to the car in front. Something was needed to even this imbalance out.
So many times last year we saw a car catch up to someone in front by 1 or 2 seconds per lap, only to get stuck behind and unable to pass when he got within the turbulent air.
If it works like in OZ on all tracks I find DRS a great addition. It makes a pass easier when there’s already a clear difference in pace between the cars, but like many drivers now have testified it’s far from a ‘free overtake’ when cars have similar pace.
sav (@)
31st March 2011, 15:54
Couldn’t agree more!
PZ
30th March 2011, 10:55
Not sure what benefit DRS & KERS really gave teams. I do think limiting the use of KERS could be more interesting if they do something further like only give 20 uses like IndyCar do with their Push to Pass button. That way the drivers would need to be more selective when they use it and you won’t have both attacking & defending drivers using it at the same time.
SparkyJ23 (@sparkyj23)
30th March 2011, 10:55
What folk want is close racing – overtaking is irrelevant. Remember before Hamilton/Vettel? How many times did a drivers NOT attempt a move in case it failed? In the past 3 years they’ve been more likely to try.
When they get to the circuits with long straights its going to be a farce – the drs is available to the driver behind coming on to the straight, he drives past and keeps the drs engaged and just drives away never to be seen again.
The real problem is if the TV goes away F1 probably dies as we know it.
McLaren, Ferrari, Williams (if they could afford it) and who else would go racing with no eyes to see what they are selling?
PeriSoft
31st March 2011, 2:18
What do you think they did in 1952? Last time I checked, they didn’t have huge sponsorship deals, tracks plastered with advertisements, and dozens of hours of TV coverage.
If fewer people see the races, fewer sponsors will sign on, and budgets will drop.
Do you really think that people will stop going racing?
Yeah, maybe F1 dies as we know it. But as I know it right now, it can’t die soon enough.
Dan_the_McLaren_fan (@dan_the_mclaren_fan)
30th March 2011, 10:58
Well personnaly, I think we shouldn’t worry too much about the DRS. First, I feared it would really make racing more artificial, but just looking at the first race, I have the feeling it doens give such a great boost in performance. Of course, we had more overtaking in Melbourne than usual, but it may be due to other factors than the DRS (like difference in the tyre degradation, the ban of the double diffuser…), and I still think it’s ok, the spirit of racing is still here. But I need 3-4 more races to have a more solid opinion on the new device
PeriSoft
31st March 2011, 2:18
So you think it might be OK because it’s ineffective?
Rousing endorsement.
Tom_EC1
30th March 2011, 10:58
DRS is not about improving the show, it’s about correcting for the unfair advantage that the leading driver has since following cars cannot get closer than 1 second behind because of turbulent air.
Damon (@damon)
30th March 2011, 11:41
You have a very flawed idea of what fair is.
Sasquatsch (@sasquatsch)
30th March 2011, 12:28
In that case they should alter the design of the cars so that that advantage doesn’t apply anymore. Like adding ground-effect, limiting the size of the wings, broader tyres and so on.
The disadvantage (which exists) has become a problem since aerodynamics became a major factor 20 years ago (thanks to Adrian Newey, with the Leyton House cars).
Pawel Wroniecki (@pawelf1)
30th March 2011, 11:00
i just watched a race from 1997 they just should ban all aerodynamic winglets and go back in time ;-)
Adam Tate (@adam-tate)
31st March 2011, 10:42
I love the old cars of the late 90’s/early 00’s before they got carried away with the aero. There were some great races then.
dsob
30th March 2011, 11:11
Before I go too far in commenting on this, may I ask that you elucidate further, Keith?
What purity has been sacrificed in NASCAR as opposed to F1, when F1 has DRS and actually directed Pirelli to make a tire that wears out quickly. Are these things to be considered “purity in racing” ?
It could be read into your comments, in this article as well as the one from 2009 referenced in the link, that you are saying NASCAR actually regulates the sport to create crashes. Was this your intention?
BasCB (@bascb)
30th March 2011, 11:20
Not sure about the crashes, but it certainly can be seen as a fact, that SC periods in NASCAR are used to get the field back together again to make for an exiting run to the finish.
Dave
30th March 2011, 11:17
For what it’s worth Keith: http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=112436&view=findpost&p=4929106
Germany (and France) ratings up, but UK, Spain, Poland and Australia down. Haven’t seen any other countries ratings for Australia GP.
Dave
30th March 2011, 11:19
And Jake’s Twitter comparison is ridiculous, the race this year was on from 06:00 to 09:00, in 2008 the race was on from like 04:00 to 07:00 so not a good comparison.
RedBullRacer (@redbullracer)
30th March 2011, 11:21
Having lived in the UK, USA and Australia in recent years, I think the key to “improving the show” and attracting TV viewers is not actually about the racing, but the pre- and post-race coverage.
So twice as many people got up to watch the Australian GP this year as in 2008? I’d put that down to two things: the 2010 season having been so close and the fact that the BBC coverage is so far superior to the ITV coverage we had back then. Likewise, I think F1 would be considerably more popular in Australia if there was decent coverage with in-depth features and interviews, rather than just a quick debrief about what Mark Webber had for lunch that day.
MattW
31st March 2011, 5:16
Yes, coverage makes a big difference to people’s decision about watching it. I remember back a few years ago when Channel 10 first got F1 from Channel 9, they took the assumption their audience hadn’t watched it before and had some pretty good segments on the technology, rules, drivers, etc. Doesn’t seem the same now…
And they need to have a good look at their on-air people, get rid of Craig Baird without hesitation.
antonyob
30th March 2011, 11:32
The more engineering intrigue there is the better. Motor racing at this or probably any level has never been “pure”. Teams have always cheated or looked for advantages. F1 has always had and will always need governing body intervention
What we saw on Sunday was the fallacy of the overtake as the “money shot”. What we actually want to see is “dicing” and this doesnt necessarily have to lead to overtaking.
Button on Massa was great fun, if the overtake had been achieved too easily then we would’ve been deprived of this, much more exciting, spectacle. DRS helped Button get in position it just didnt help him get steel balls.
Adam Tate (@adam-tate)
31st March 2011, 10:44
Ha! That was perfectly said :)
Mitchtj
30th March 2011, 11:32
Ive never felt in the slightest that F1 is boring. I like that overtaking is difficult, it makes it far more satisfying when a driver pulls it off!
The way Vettel dispensed of Button after his pit stop in Melbourne was lame. That could have been a very interesting struggle.
I think personally its too far, Kers is the same. The sport had its greatest ever season in 2010 without any of this.
Having said that, and in the ultimate contradiction of what I had just said, if Hamilton had gotten right behind Vettel in Melbourne with DRS and KERS deployed, that would have been a sight to see.
antonyob
30th March 2011, 11:41
as Button proved DRS is not a push to pass button. anyone who thinks overtaking has been devalued because 2 were achieved in the first race but many more were attempted and failed is being frankly irrational
antonyob
30th March 2011, 11:52
in the turbo days, they turned the boost up to catch someone.
alot of the time we think the old days were better because we forget the rubbish bits, in F1 its because most of the time the information wasnt available
antonyob
30th March 2011, 11:55
i actually agree with prisonermonkeys! ~feint~
just.daz (@nemo87)
30th March 2011, 11:56
They should fit the cars with explosives. If they don’t make the 107% rule they go BOOM. If they fall more than 5 seconds behond the car in front they go BOOM. If Alonso uses 3rd Gear he goes Boom. And if Sebastien Vettel does the ‘number one’ hand gesture again he goes BOOM..
mvi
30th March 2011, 16:11
Sounds like you spend all your time on video games.
just.daz (@nemo87)
30th March 2011, 16:44
hahahaha.. F1 2010 ;)
just.daz (@nemo87)
30th March 2011, 16:45
either that or watching michael bay movies ;)
snafuracer
30th March 2011, 12:09
No, it still hasn’t got too far, but it’s heading over there. The artificial gimmicks like KERS and DRS help to some extent to overcome the problem of the ridiculously stupid design of some tracks – this is where the real problem is. FIA need to urgently make track changes.
HounslowBusGarage (@hounslowbusgarage)
30th March 2011, 12:37
LOL!
Bernard (@bernard)
30th March 2011, 12:11
Movable aero is not a gimmick, it’s the rules surrounding the usage of such devices that is attracting all the attention.
Sasquatsch (@sasquatsch)
30th March 2011, 12:21
Has nothing to do with DRS, KERS or double row restarts, as these were introduced during the races. More likely the TV ratings are up because of the races of last year, which in Formula One were (imho) the best of over a decade (because of the ban on refuelling).
BBT (@bbt)
30th March 2011, 12:29
Just as Bahrain wasn’t representative of the rest of the season last year nor will Australia be this year.
It far too early to make any informed comments about how the DRS system is working now or will in the future. I’m much more optimistic than I was but still refrain for moving to either side of the fence, pro DRS or against.
What is really needed is something that nulls the advantage the car in front has around the corners so that down the straights and into the braking zone both cars are equal with neither having an advantage, that would be awesome, but I’m not sure possible.
Lets face it the car behind only has a problem following around the corners not the straights, DRS is trying to overcoming a disadvantage that was incurred on a different part of the track, that’s not ideal in my world.
DASMAN
30th March 2011, 13:15
You hit the nail right on the head there!
ROSSI
30th March 2011, 14:12
i think we need semi ground effect cars,with smaller wings and larger tyres, oh,and no carbon/carbon brakes.
antonyob
30th March 2011, 12:30
aerodynamics were in F1 a bit earlier than that! from memory struts with huge aerofoils were appearing in about 1968
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
30th March 2011, 12:34
NASCAR still does things for the show. Like the yellow-white-green rule. Or they send the Safety car to the track for no other reason than tight the pack up again, so they can go 2-wide for a couple of laps, which the Americans find “great” because it ends in another crash.
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 16:04
For sure Nascar does things for the show like all racing series do, however, you are being inaccurate and making some assumptions about a series you obviously don’t take seriously…it is green, white, checkered and they instigated that so that after four hours of racing on a Sunday afternoon it wouldn’t end under a caution in case there had been a crash or debris on the track right near the end of the race…I’m sure you wouldn’t like to see an F1 race end behind the safety car…same thinking from Nascar’s perspective…
And they absolutely do not send the safety car out for no other reason than to tighten up the field…
Fraser Loudon
30th March 2011, 12:38
The point of the DRS was to increase the chance for a opportunity to pass. (improve the show)
As we saw countless times. Drivers deployed it and got closer than they would have without it along the straight.
But it was still down to the driver to out drive the defending driver.
Button failed to use it to pass Massa for most of his first stint. Yet after his drive through he managed to pass Kobayashi. The difference, Massa parked his ferrari where he needed to Kobayashi didnt do the same with the sauber.
All the DRS did was allow good racing to happen between Button and Massa. Therefore it was a success and improved the show.
random comment generator
30th March 2011, 12:41
I just see it as though the best drivers in the world are given a chance to overtake more, whereas before they looked like they were incapable when really it was just a combination of porr track layout and aerodynamic efficiency.
HounslowBusGarage (@hounslowbusgarage)
30th March 2011, 12:56
I’m not going to argue the merits or pitfalls of DRS, two-line restarts or anything like that.
I think the fundamental question to be asked is common to any number of sports, passtimes and cultural events.
What is the function of the activity in question?
Is it
A) to entertain and involve only the cogniscenti
B) to widen its appeal while retaining core values and undiluted activities?
C) to make as much money as possible?
This is the kind of question that every cultural and sporting event has to ask itself. It’s not just sport – remember the outcry from the purists when the Promenade Concerts staged an Albert Hall concert involving music from Doctor Who tv programmes? “Sacrilige!” some shouted, but I bet they sold all the tickets.
Bernie is playing to the mass market and going for Answer C because there are too many events competing for all our attentions to make Answer B tenable.
Just like 20Twenty cricket (maybe I’ve got it wrong; Twenty20?) has drawn howls of scorn from adherents of the three and five day games, but no one can deny that it’s brought millions of new viewers to cricket and cranked up the economics of the game to astonishing levels (see IPL).
Not all of us might like the way F1 is going, but at least its short-term survival looks secure. Whether fans from the fifties would still recognise it as F1 is another question.
Dumbing down? Probably.
Andrew
30th March 2011, 12:58
Ultimately and simply, all we need to end up with is that the only obstacle to getting ahead on the track is the actual, physical object of the car in front, the skills of the respective drivers and how much room there is on the track. If there was a way of completely removing the wave of turbulent air then do it. Unfortunately there isn’t so we’ve got a DRS which lessens it’s effect and hopefully ground-effects coming back in a couple of years.
Sounds like a fair enough solution to me.
kowalsky
30th March 2011, 12:59
drs and all the gimmicks are not the real problem. In fact, i think drs worked pretty well at the last gp.
The real problem with f1 is all the politics. They allowed the double diffuser in 2009 for political reasons, when it was clear, was hampering the overtaking.
Now they want to use small engines, and in my view we have a real lack of power already.
We want overtaking, but when montoya did one, he was acused of dangerous driving and was forced to leave. Kimi is going to nascar as well. To tell you the truth i am disenchanted.
But when i watch a motorcycle race, i get as excited as, when i watched f1 in the 80’s, so it’s not me who has changed. It’s f1.
paolo (@paolo)
30th March 2011, 13:12
How long is it before F1 is turned into the motor-racing equivalent of WWF wrestling, where the winners and season plotline is pre-determined to provide maximum ‘entertainment’?
F1 is a sport and this does not involve gimmicks and handicaps, but instead provides the best sportsmen in the field challenging each other within the same parameters. May the best man win.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
30th March 2011, 13:29
Good question.
One of the main interests to me, if not the biggest, is the technical side of Formula 1. The amount of variables is almost infinite and it has pushed me to pay more attention to everything. When I get into something I really have to sink my teeth in and F1 is no exception to that, perhaps even more so than most! With this in mind any further technical variable is welcome as far as i’m concerned, it forces me to think, it forces teams to react and it forces the community to discuss it’s value to the sport which is part of the sport in itself.
I can see how these kind of innovations could be seen as gimmicky, on paper perhaps they are. I’m in a position where the addition of KERS, DRS etc allows me enjoy the sport more. I do not feel bias for or against any team so I never feel like i’m getting a unfair deal if my particular team is not fairing up so well and equally I don’t feel like I should be embarrased at success as a result of a ‘gimmick’ either.
Now, with regards to the TV audience this may sound contradictory but I think that FOM/FIA/FOTA should really take more of a gamble. For me, the top level of motorsport should be just that, the top-level, where the performance difference is so tight that a tenth here or there can decide championships. We can’t pretend that every race is fantastic, that’s impossible, there will invariably be some dull races but the same goes for any sport. You take the rough with the smooth.
F1 has to remember that to the majority of people it is a sport the minorty, a business.
antonyob
30th March 2011, 13:39
well said mr Tanner, spot on.
i remember 25 years ago Murray would explain EVERY race how streamlining worked as if everyone had just tuned in for the first time. Now Brundle and co can assume a pretty high level of understanding of the viewing public and part of that is because all the new developments are in the public domain driven by rule changes.
btw..off topic- thought Brundle and Coulthard were superb. never a fan of DC but he was excellent. has there been an article on this yet Keith ? ??
Don Mateo
30th March 2011, 13:41
On the question of motorsports chasing TV ratings, they have to. Motorsport generally relies on sponsorship to make it happen, if there aren’t enough viewers then the sponsors will leave and the series will die. Even hardcore fans may eventually be driven away if the sport no longer provides the spectacle they’re after. Therefore it makes sense for F1 to try to improve the show.
However, what steps should be taken needs to be considered carefully. It’s been known for years that the lack of overtaking is caused by aerodynamics, but this needs to be solved properly rather than relying on gimmicks like DRS to circumvent the problem.
I’d also say that lack of overtaking doesn’t necessarily mean a boring race, as long as the cars are racing closely. Yes it can be frustrating seeing a faster car stuck behind a slower one, but it can also be thrilling watching the two of them battle, seeing how the chasing driver attacks and how the leading driver defends his position.
LSL
30th March 2011, 13:46
DRS is the best thing that happened to the sport lately.
The driver in front has a HUGE advantage over the following car. Even if he is more than a SECOND(which is more than a lot in F1, as we all know), he could still have a VERY hard time to overtake the car in front. I think the best example is ALO on PET last year. And i think alonso is not bad at overtaking, (monaco 10, and had a few other GPs last year where he had to climb up from a lastY position.)
anyway. the driver in front has a HUGE aero advantage. If he had been faster, the driver behind him couldn’t catch him up.
So, he is clearly the slower car is in front. So, we want slower cars have better finishes, just because they were there first?
And it’s not like the following driver presses the DRS button and he just teleports in front of the other car. Massa was clearly slower than button, and he could barely overtake him.
On the other hand, KERS is a complete waste of money. Cutting edge and “going to be in roadcars” etc ********.
They should allow more powerful engines, and if you press the kers like button, it’d give you more power, like kers.
other than that, the engine would run the same as it does today. It Upsets the balance, makes the cars unnecessarily heavier. It just ruins balance…
DRS is just evens the playing field, so now the car in front doesn’t have the huge advantage, and without advantage, he loses the position. If he is faster, than good luch taking back to position in the next lap, but we all know it won’t happen, because by that time, the overtaking car will be gone, several seconds! ahead
Steven (@johnso52)
30th March 2011, 13:52
I do need to comment on what Jimmie Johnson said:
Dude you race in a circle… It’s easy to sit back and draft right around someone, you don’t need power — didn’t that just happen to him on the last lap just a week ago? And there was nothing he could go about it. So overtaking becomes very mundane in their sport thus creating excitement and “good driving”. Put NASCAR on road track each weekend like F1 and their way of overtaking would be slamming into one another in each corner to get around someone.
I appreciate NASCAR and I do see where Johnson is coming from but F1 and NASCAR are VERY VERY different sports.
Robbie (@robbie)
30th March 2011, 14:57
I think JJ is just saying what a lot of F1 fans would agree with…doesn’t want to have a steering wheel full of buttons operating gadgets…he’s saying Nascar has tight racing without all that…
You are way oversimplifying Nascar with your comment about it being ‘easy to sit back and draft right around someone and you don’t need power’, and when they do race on road courses they certainly aren’t ‘slamming into one another in each corner’…sounds like you don’t appreciate Nascar nor do you see where JJ is coming from…
Steven (@johnso52)
30th March 2011, 16:15
Yes I was a little harsh… but I feel when a driver can sit back, and they do, then decide “I’m going to pass him now” seems to me they have a much easier time passing so they don’t need all the gadgets, they have elements they can control at high speeds — that in itself is a science, no different than the gadgets he’s ripping on. And yes I do understand they do race on road tracks and it very difficult to pass and racing isn’t as tight even with NASCAR, I would presume JJ would acknowledge the differences… thats all.
Good reply Rob. Thanks.
Robbie (@robbie)
30th March 2011, 18:10
I can understand it appearing like they just sit back and then decide ‘I’m going to pass him now’, but I can assure you this is not what is happening…there are many reasons for it appearing so, but try to imagine the top let’s say 20 cars all being within a hair of each other in performance…try to imagine half a field of cars all being within a hair of Red Bull in F1 and tell me passing would be easy…the Nascar cars are so similar in performance that passing is actually not that easy, often depends on good pitting and having the right tires on at the right time, how their setup is treating the tires on that day, track temp etc etc, which is why any one of at least a dozen guys could win a race in Nascar on any given weekend…it’s like a 180mph moving parking lot out there at times…that isn’t necessarily easier than F1…just different…
Icthyes (@icthyes)
30th March 2011, 13:57
We came to love F1 before these things, some of us in the days with no tyre, engine, gearbox or even qualifying rules. So we didn’t need the rules, gimmicks, to get us into F1, so naturally we’re resistant.
But from the outside, there were many people who just needed a bit of a push, a hook, to get into things.
Personally I consider the current qualifying system to be the best thing to happen to F1 since I started watching in 1996. The engine and gearbox rules are a little stifling, but necessary to cut costs and their effect is rarely visible beyond a) margins of victory and b) retirements from old components, the prospect of which ass a new challenge to the engineers, so in that sense it’s a step forward as well as a step back – not to mention as the season goes on engine freshness goes out of whack and drivers can benefit/have to accommodate disparities.
The tyre rules are iffy, but need only be tweaked a little to give the right balance of mixing things up and racing purity (I would say drop the two-compound rule and extend the “start on same set” to everyone, then we would see some gambles and mixtures).
Now for the gimmicks, the source of most consternation. They do cheapen things. But you have to consider that they are trying to plug a problem which would be very costly to get solve after two years of big rule changes, which is why the next ones come in 2013. We knew we couldn’t go on the way things were, so something had to be done and this was the cheapest and easiest way of doing it. Ironically the thing that has brought most praise – the open use in qualifying – is my least favourite part of the new rules. But that’s besides the point.
So long as we aren’t venturing into the territory of engineering crashes, Safety Cars at every opportunity, once the DRS goes we should be on the right track. I think at the moment F1 has gone far enough, but not too far.
damonsmedley (@damonsmedley)
30th March 2011, 13:59
Not yet, but they’re certainly giving it a red-hot go! Moving the Australian Grand Prix start time to 5pm in 2009 was one of the most frustrating things I’ve ever witnessed. The city of Melbourne, the lovely setting of Albert Park and surrounds looked absolutely gorgeous back in the days of an earlier start time. The mid-day sun lit up the park beautifully and really showcased the city in what I considered to be the best way. I think the 5pm start time makes the track look awful, and on top of that, it makes for a very frustrating viewing experience at the track.
On Sunday I was watching the race from the inside of the first corner wondering how much more I would be enjoying it if I didn’t have to be constantly squinting into the sun. I found it quite upsetting that I was praying for rain in my home Grand Prix simply so I didn’t have to put up with the harsh late-afternoon light. What upset me even more is that the 300 000 fans that had forked out no less than 500 dollars for a grand stand ticket were forced to endure this light entirely for the benefit of those who weren’t even there.
I’m not sure what you think of F1 fans, Bernie, but I’m sure there would be very few that value 3 hours of sleep over the season opening Grand Prix at one of the best circuits in the world.
MattW
31st March 2011, 5:31
I was sitting in the Clark stand out back at turn 9 and had not only the direct sun shining into my eyes, but the reflection off the water as well. Not much fun without sunglasses. At 2pm it would’ve been sweet.
McGregski (@mcgregski)
30th March 2011, 14:12
Back in the days when a 1 minute gap could be made up in 10 laps the DRS would have been utterly pointless but now the cars are split by a tenth of a second a lap I do think that the DRS has a good place here but I think it should be used differently.
Instead of allowing a following driver to use it within 1 second of the car in front – why not allow them to use it until they are within 1 second of the car in front?? The field being closer together would dramatically improve the racing.
In Australia Vettel was off, got his lead and all he had to do was manage the gap. The only things that would have changed the result would have been a massive pit cock up, car failure or crashing… BUT what if Hamilton and Petrov could gain a second a lap using the DRS and KERS and get close enough to actually battle him for the lead??
Now THAT would be interesting!!
dave
30th March 2011, 14:26
sounds like a bloody video game
vjanik
30th March 2011, 15:05
talking of gimmicks, that would be the ultimate one.
why not give the cars behind more engine power until they cacth up? or slow down the leader by letting the FIA apply the brakes a few times?
it would turn into a joke.
McGregski (@mcgregski)
30th March 2011, 15:32
It does in a sense I agree (now that I’ve read it again) but I do think that the cars need to be closer together if we are going to get “more of a show” look at eveything Nascar says that it has and a lot is due to the fact that the cars are a car length apart most of the time.
Closer Cars = More Action
mantolwen (@mantolwen)
30th March 2011, 14:27
I know what would attract more TV viewers: changing the graphics from 4:3 to 16:9 in order to fit the broadcast image. I do love the graphics especially the new ones this year (the P and the chequered flag especially), but you miss a lot of the action when it’s going on behind the numbers – especially in practice and qualifying. A minority of broadcasters still show it in 4:3 (and okay, probably Kangaroo TV) but come on! How long has 16:9 been out? My grandma has 4:3, and what that means is she misses what’s going on at the edge of the screen. F1 is in HD. Why not 16:9?
McGregski (@mcgregski)
30th March 2011, 15:33
Do you watch through Sky?
You might need to just change your settings. I watch through that and don’t lose anything at the side of the screen
Xanathos
30th March 2011, 14:59
It is funny how a sport that is watched by more than half a billion people each year keeps talking about introducing various gimmicks to gain a bigger audience. “Improving the show” (How i hate that phrase by now…) might be necessary for Indycar to regain the attention it once enjoyed, but not for F1. At least in Europe, F1 is the most popular sport on TV right after football, watched by dozens of millions even at some weird hours in the early morning. So the show can’t be too bad, can it?
Russell Gould
30th March 2011, 15:11
This weekend I learned that DRS requires more than 860 (or so) meters to work. It’s no license to pass the driver ahead (Ask Jenson or ‘Nando!).
NASCAR? Real racing? It’s no surprise that racers from a series featuring multiple meaningless passes every lap would fail to understand modern Formula 1.
NASCAR’s great achievement is the proof that racing can be boring, even to motorsport fans! ;-)
Mac_v2
30th March 2011, 17:32
Agreed, I have tried at least twice to watch a full NASCAR race, I fell asleep on both occasions.
Suppose it should be a different experience at the race track, but its success has always baffled me.
The edge
30th March 2011, 15:19
It’s quite simple really, not sure why it calls for so much comment
No tv = no sponsors = no racing
What’s wrong with DRS? Trailing cars loose out due to lost performance so no unfair advantage in using it…just re-levelling the playing field
As we’ve seen it’s still dam hard to pass so still takes skill to do
If cars were just flying passed each other then that would be different and FIA will adjust to prevent as stated numerous occasions
DaveW
30th March 2011, 18:44
The fact that the car in front creates turbulence no more unlevels the field that does the physical presence of his car preventing the ultimate pass. Turbulence is a reality of racing and has been for generations, just like gravity, inertia, and the laws of thermodynamics, all of which prevent passing. Anyway, the leveling the field concept does not justify DRS because, first, it presumes that the leading driver’s advantage is somehow unfair or unwarranted. Whatever advantage it confers, the leading driver earned it, or it fell to him by the fortune that plays its role in every sport. Second, it proves too much, because it would justify any gimmick allowing a driver to drive closely behind another without degradation of car performance. There are infinite equally ridiculous ways to bring about that result, but that is an abyss no true fan wants to contemplate.
We should be careful what we wish for in demanding for more passing because it takes cramped, narrow view of what entertainment has meant in the sport. If the DRS were in effect at the relevant time and worked as its designers dream, the great Senna-Alesi battle at Phoenix would never have happened. Same for the great Alonso-Schumacher battles at Imola, Schumacher-Hakkinen at Spa, Button-Alonso at Imola, the list goes on and on. We would not be thinking of these battles decades on if the faster car just made the pass, sweetened by a remedial shift of the playing field, and drove away into the distance. If DRS and similarly justified gimmicks accumulate, we will see an age where passes are basically asterisked, to distinguish them from those of drivers in previous eras.
Furthermore, there is no crisis in the sport requiring emergency measures to increase passing. These measures are on the table on the theory that they bring in new fans and new revenue. There is no collapse of viewership or revenue streams or interest. I have no equity or commercial stake in the sport, so I like it like it is. So the no, there is no need for an “alternative” to DRS.
As far as how it is, complaining that the current state is 90 minutes of a “procession” with only a few seconds of passing here and there sounds like when people complain that soccer matches only have 2-3 goals and the other 90 minutes are people passing a ball back and forth across the field. The response to that can go without saying, and it applies equally to F1.
Broxter (@)
30th March 2011, 15:23
I like to think of the DRS as making up for the turbulent air the car behind has to deal with, rather than giving an unfair advantage.
electrolite (@electrolite)
30th March 2011, 15:27
I think it does. And it’s not about gimmicks, or new systems novelising everything. If the rules and regulations stayed so similar all the time, gradually all the teams would find themselves squeezing every last drop of performance within those regulations, becoming more and familiar with what boundaries you can and not cross and eventually the top teams having perfect cars. Then we would have processional races. It’s bad enough as it is, actually…
The edge
30th March 2011, 15:34
I’ll go further
Perhaps those opposed to DRS should firstly remember it was the DRIVERS over-taking group who first proposes the idea – because of the lack of over-taking
Perhaps those opposed would prefer to do away with the race and just have another qualifying shoot-out on Sunday with maybe a start or 2 thrown in for food measures
F1 NEEDS to be as much about the driver as car not just a contest on who can build the fastest car
Without DRS that’s all we were left with, an exciting Saturday and about 60 seconds of racing off the line and then the reliability procession
If anybody’s got a better suggestion than DRS nows the time to tell us
Otherwise don’t knock it till it’s had time to work or fail
After all…
If your in the lead and get done by DRS you don’t have long to wait to get your own back do you
Mads (@mads)
30th March 2011, 15:37
In the race they should just set every car that is not in front on fire until they gain the lead. Last man standing. That would at least look good. 23 cars on fire following another car desperately trying to get by just to survive. Then let artificially created earthquakes hit the track every 10 laps and maybe some rhinos running over the track randomly. Or just mount a 50cal machine gun on the top of the cars to shoot down the guys in front.
Seriously? The DRS is fine for now i think. It is artificial, but i think it helped a lot in Melbourne to keep the cars close.
Let’s wait for 2013 with ground effects and turbochargers and lets see what happens. I don’t think FIA should do more to “improve the show” for now.
Victorinox
30th March 2011, 15:54
A couple of comments:
1- The crash at the start of the race in St. Pete was not a result of “rules changes” as IndyCar has ALWAYS STARTED ITS RACES WITH THE CARS IN TWO LINES. Dario Franchitti said it right, it was not the rules, it was some people making crazy kamikaze dives in the first corner of the first race.
2- Jimmy Johnson should remember the whole “Chase for the Cup” crap that NASCAR has in place before giving advice about racing to other series.
Joey-Poey (@joey-poey)
30th March 2011, 16:58
Yeah I was gonna say, NASCAR is *just* as gimmicky. Things like the “lucky dog” and the chase you mentioned.
Robbie (@robbie)
30th March 2011, 18:15
Very true…Nascar uses it’s own set of gimmicks to achieve the best audience possible, always subject to tweeking of course, eg. the new points system in Nascar this year…
But literally in terms of buttons on the steering wheel and moveable wings, this is the opposite of Nascar and I understand JJ’s comment that he is glad they can have close racing without such mechanical gimmicks…I’d prefer F1 get more back to basics…
Joey-Poey (@joey-poey)
30th March 2011, 18:56
me too, but it’s a kettle calling the pot black situation.
Nick Hayes
30th March 2011, 16:25
Well, for a sport that’s willing to do silly things like sprinkler systems for more spectators, I find it amazing they’d risk hurting the most important aspect of the show (sound) for a zero-return gimmick like turbo engines just for a tiny elevation in green credentials. These low-revving engines will sound like garbage. It will be the death of the sport.
While I am very conflicted about the sporting integrity of DRS, I will say this: trailing drivers prior to the aero-era had a much easier time of passing than they do even with DRS. So, if anything, maybe DRS gives a more fair representation of the speed/ability of the passing driver than was witnessed prior to DRS. How much sporting integrity is there really in seeing a mediocre driver being able to keep a better driver/car behind him just because of the menace of aero-wash?
Joey-Poey (@joey-poey)
30th March 2011, 16:55
To be fair, the crash at the start of the Indy Car race (which incidentally I only finally got to watch the recording of last night) would have happened even without the rule change. They have always done double-file starts. The restarts are what have changed. That said, by lap 15 I was yelling at the screen. The two wide starts simply do not work on road and street courses. I think they could continue it on ovals, but nowhere else. I’m pretty sure the reason they finally started getting clean starts is a mix of everyone learning it’s got to be EXTRA cautious and simply that the pack was thinned out a bit.
Though not the most exciting race (people talk about a lack of passing in F1, well…) it was a nail biter towards the end. Especially with Simona breathing down Kanaan’s neck for a good 20 laps. I feel like if they got rid of the two wide restarts and allowed drivers to defend (dumbest controversy ever last year) then they’d have it right. Their “push to pass” doesn’t even feel that bad since it’s left up to the driver to use at any time they feel -defending OR attacking. And once they’ve used up their 20, they’re gone. That to me is no different than the boost knob being turned up and down and using up fuel. It’s strategic, not an artificial advantage.
As someone who grew up watching Indy Car in their heyday, it’s sad to see it go through what it has since 2000 or so. The glory days aren’t quite back yet, but getting there. It’s developing great names and bringing back old ones (oh so awesome to see Rahal and Andretti on the lineup). The cars look great (save for the stupid bubble right in front of the cockpit). They’re visiting some of the great tracks of old such as Mid-Ohio and Toronto. And of course they’re finally unified (still mad that CART lost out, though). But the racing, though not bad, is subject to some ****-poor rules as I’ve mentioned above. If it tells you anything, F1 is what brought back my racing fervor when I got into it in 2009.
dyslexicbunny
30th March 2011, 16:57
I think DRS is an interesting concept. I originally thought it stupid but now, I’m curious about it’s implementation in future races. I still think it’s just having a complicated solution for a different problem but that’s my opinion.
But I think a better solution is more grip in the tires and less from the aero. Less aero means less dirty air which promotes following. Closer following means more likely to see overtaking. This is the problem DRS is trying to fix but simply going around it the wrong way.
I think if they can continue to bring down budgets (slowly), the racing will improve. I will be awful for the heavyweights at first because they are used to spending more money. But then I think you’ll start to see a lot more from everybody and potentially more creative ideas when you can only spend so much.
The problem is everyone wants more ratings. At some point, you just have to accept enough is enough. To lure in new eyes, you’ll make decisions that will lose current ones.
semirossi (@semirossi)
30th March 2011, 17:22
To make racing fair, “same for everyone” is the name of the game. That’s what everyone wants, right. But if all cars are equal, ideally they are equally as fast.
Watching an F1 race quite easily shows us how perfect the drivers can make their laps. Laptimes are within less of a second, several laps in a row. They are really good drivers, or?
But, if the cars/rules are the same, and laptimes almost identical throughout – how are they supposed to overtake each other? To overtake you need to be faster (without team-orders, he he).
Can it be that F1-racing is way too simple today? Practice is reduced to a minimum, and drivers still make perfect laps. Hmmm… In which other sport is practice limited?
If everyone had the same car and enough practice, they would probably also lap the same times in the end. “Same cars” are the worst prerequisites for overtaking because if they make perfect laps, there will be no room for passing. For overtaking to take place, we need differences. And since everybody wants equality the “difficulty of driving” can be the only variable to make up differences. The differences in F1 must come from driver mistakes.
If they bring in changes to the rules, it has to be of the sort which makes driving more difficult. In MotoGP we see alot more overtaking. There are different bikes there for certain, but the driving is so much more difficult that we see alot more driver mistakes. Their individual laptimes differ alot more. Same thing was seen in F1 in old days. They had manual gearboxes back then which allowed for alot of more mistakes and time loss.
Why is rain racing so interesting and full of overtakings? Because it’s more difficult of course. ABS and TC are not allowed anymore, which is good, but more needs to be changed. Manual gearboxes, double clutches, separate brakes (front/rear), seamless manual differentials, seamless manually controlable wings are all good ideas to make it more difficult. Artificial rain may be a complicated and way too expensive solution, but there are many other cheap ways to make driving more difficult.
If driving F1 cars would be like mastering a helicopter, I bet we’d all enjoy racing alot more. On TV, on internet and in real life.
Making F1-driving more difficult will increase the racing intensity and TV numbers as well.
I may be a bit arrogant when I say this (sorry if so), but F1 racing today is pretty straight forward. Drivers hardly even practice for Christ sake.
dyslexicbunny
30th March 2011, 20:23
I think if we want to see more mistakes, limit simulator time. Seriously.
If I can spent an entire week driving different strategies on my car, I’m going to be pretty good at it. I should be consistent in my lap times as well.
Rate it based on number of completed laps at a circuit. 0-20 (most), 21-50 (less), etc… until you have a minimal limit.
New drivers can use more time to learn a circuit while veterans can just get a quick feel for the cars.
semirossi (@semirossi)
31st March 2011, 9:27
Some drivers don’t even use simulators because they don’t get anything out of it. Schumacher, Kimi, etc.
Simulators mostly add to trackknowledge, but almost nothing to driving or car setup.
However, limiting practice goes against the nature of sport. Doesn’t feel right. Sport should be practiced, more or less.
Calum (@calum)
30th March 2011, 17:27
I think if the FIA beleive DRS is the way to go for ‘improving the show’ they should thank Mclaren for pioneering the F-duct system.
All DRS seems to be is an F-duct that is operated by a button and hydraulics rather than the driver’s left hand! The effects gained by both systems is the same – when un use, downforce is reduced significantly in order to increase top speed and aid overtaking.
However, similarly with F-duct, of which the benefit was there but slightly over-hyped, the benefit of DRS is negligable so far..
The majority of teams had created various takes on the F-duct system, so I beleive the principle used by that should have been taken forward to 2011, rather than using a movable wing plane to reduce/increase downforce as needed.
A moveable flap covering the entry hole to the F-duct system could have been used instead, that way the systems from 2010 could have been adapted for fairer use in 2011.
Lemon (@lemon)
30th March 2011, 17:39
Probably one of the main reasons the British ratings have gone up is that we don’t have to sit through any retched adverts!!!! Lets hope the BBC don’t drop F1!
Piffles
30th March 2011, 18:22
I don’t really mind DRS. It’s an extra challenge in Qualifying and moveable aero is a logical step up from constant aero as we have now. Why waste all your power and drag by having huge wings down the straights?
I’m also not against using it as an overtaking aid. After all, decreasing the following cars drag is the same as the “tow” we’ve always had in racing. It just increases it.
However, I am totally against having a “defined overtaking zone” on the race circuits. What’s next? Dual carriageways?
I would allow use the DRS ALWAYS in practice, qualifying and race, EXCEPT when the driver behind you is less the 1 second behind.
– Makes the rules much simpler
– DRS becomes not just an overtaking aid but improved aero for all
– Instead of boosting the car behind, we penalize the car in front. A subtle way of making “blocking” more difficult, and therefore, overtaking slightly easier.
drmouse (@drmouse)
30th March 2011, 18:31
Don’t have time to read everything, so I’ll just drop my 2p in here.
DRS, in it’s current form, for the reasons it was introduced, is a bad idea.
KERS, in it’s current form, is a bad idea.
The problem is that the way they have been technically restricted make them of very little value, both the the sport and to the real world. I believe that they would be better-received if they were less restricted.
I agree with the principal of KERS: recover wasted energy during braking and re-apply it to the car under acceleration. With a few less restrictions, this could be used in many more ways, including fuel saving.
I agree with the principal of DRS: reduce downforce (and the resultant drag) when it is not needed. Once again, with less limitation the team strategists and drivers could make much more use of the system.
Then again, I for one want less restrictions on most things in F1. I watch as much for the technical developments and innovations as for the racing. If they really wanted to focus just on “improving the show” (for the non-techies), I would recommend giving all the teams a standard car and let them go race. They would certainly loose at least one viewer though, as I’d not be back.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
30th March 2011, 19:29
Agree with Vishy. Dirty air kicks in around 1s from what I remember.
Bebilou (@bebilou)
30th March 2011, 19:41
DRS and KERS are good for racing… in video games ! I love Mario kart, Burnout, etc.. but here we’re talking about F1, not XBox or Playstation !
It should be all about late breaking, corner speeds, pushing to the limits, but instead of that the only focus during a F1 race is “did he use is KERS ?”, “will he be close enough to use DRS ?”, “when will he come into the pits ?”
What a shame… This is definitely not the F1 I fell in love with back in 1991…
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
30th March 2011, 20:24
But the application of these gizmo’s takes some talent in itself, surely?
You need to apply more though to braking distance and consider so much more.
That’s my opinion at least anyways :)
Pedal to the Vettel (@pedal-to-the-vettel)
30th March 2011, 20:18
Tbh i wish the new fans of f1 would just be quiet. I haven’t had a problem with the F1 season…ever, unless it’s halfway through the Ferrari dominant era.
I find football boring but you don’t see me complaining to FIFA for “multi ball time” when there’s 10 minutes left on the clock while being 0-0.
There are f1 fans and there’s other sports fans who think they are f1 fans.
I really hope the f1 teams will make a stand on any more “changes” that Bernie and co think up…
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
30th March 2011, 20:26
Bernie won’t be around much longer. Which is a good thing in my opinion. No sport should be run by, or least give the impression it’s run by one guy.
I respect everything he has done, but he does not own the sport, maybe the commercial rights but not the ethos.
semirossi (@semirossi)
31st March 2011, 9:30
Bernie doesn’t run F1. He runs only the commercials.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
31st March 2011, 13:39
In a way, he does, he drives alot of the direction of the sport. Which is a shame.
antonyob
30th March 2011, 21:37
the day F1 does anything at all NASCAR ish is the day it finally succombs to the ultimate gimmick of rebunching fields for no good reason.
F1 has always had a technical edge, from the freak cars of the 30’s, air brakes, turbo boosts, ground effects, turbines, 6 wheels, launch systems, 4wd, …the list goes on.. forever. My favourite: placing the driver ahead of the front wheels to improve car balance ( a colin chapman idea naturally).
If you dont like tech go and watch Touring cars, this is obviously not the sport for you.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
31st March 2011, 8:21
Who’s saying they don’t like technology? What is this comment in reaction to?
Pinball
30th March 2011, 21:44
I would say that the introduction of new complicated rules such as the DRS actually turn off the casual fan. The main barrier stopping me from getting into NASCAR is silly rules such as free passes, and green / white checked flags. People want to watch racing, not try to understand multiple rules. To get casual fans interested keep the rules simple, and real.
Pinball
30th March 2011, 21:59
Furthermore consistent penalties would help the casual viewer stay interested. Take Sunday’s race for instance, Button was penalised for going outside the limits of the circuit, Vettel was not. To the casual fan, that would seem like there is some sort of bias. To me if they just penalised every driver who put a wheel outside the limits of the track, with the same penalty it would make the sport seem a lot fairer in the eyes of the casual fan. The technology exists too. Look at sports like Tennis, they can tell via electronic sensors in the court whether a ball is in or out of bounds, why can’t motorsport install similar sensors in the edge of line of edge circuit? My theory is because they cannot be bothered.
JamieFranklinF1 (@jamiefranklinf1)
30th March 2011, 22:06
The fact is that there is nothing really majorly wrong with Formula 1. I have been a die hard fan since I can remember, and i’ve never thought it was bad. At times it was a little repetitive in the years like 2004, but still good.
Also, the DRS IS a good thing. It brings the drivers (roughly) on equal measures, because the driver behind is at a disadvantage from the turbulent air. The problem is that you can’t take too much downforce away because it makes the cars slower, which people (I know I) don’t want.
There are different types of fans, and it will never be possible to satisfy them all.
PeriSoft
31st March 2011, 2:26
Why do you think the drivers SHOULD be on equal measures? The guy in front is in front because he’s faster. At some point he made the right decision to get there. He gains an advantage from it.
He gains an advantage in the wet for being out front… Why not spray his facemask to ‘bring them on equal measures’?
He gains an advantage because he started in front and runs in clean air, keeping his car cooler. Why not restrict his radiators to ‘bring them on equal measures’?
A naturally talented driver gains an advantage over a journeyman – why not give penalties to the better drivers to ‘bring them on equal terms’?
‘Bring on equal terms’ is the very antithesis of motorsport. The fact that so many people who claim to be ‘fanatics’ fail to understand the most basic elements of racing is utterly depressing.
Supporters of DRS are either evil or clueless. Sorry. There aren’t any other options.
semirossi (@semirossi)
31st March 2011, 16:36
Dito that!
Difficult to drive cars -> more driver errors -> more overtaking,… even if it’s dead equal.
manatcna (@manatcna)
30th March 2011, 23:21
The rule makers (IMO) are going the wrong way.
If you want overtaking, how about trying to make tyres that don’t sprinkle the track with marbles.
This gives drivers a way of getting out of (most) of the dirty air of the car in front, and a better chance of a pass.
Or am I missing something here?
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
31st March 2011, 0:29
I still think it’s 2 or 3 races too early before saying anything about the DRS. I was one of the few people who liked KERS in ’09. It gave a bit of variation in the field, and Hamilton and Raikkonen were able to make the best of it. Not so convinced with the DRS though.
JohnBt
31st March 2011, 1:33
To be fair the DRS has not shown much but it’s only the first race. Let’s give it a few more races and at different tracks then will we know how effective it can be. But in Melbourne cars were closer to each other though. Even FIA has indicated if it dosen’t do any good it will be removed, that’s sensible.
KERS has proven that it does work well when needed.
But please don’t bring in the sprinkler system, that is a horrible idea.
StefMeister
31st March 2011, 2:14
I don’t like DRS, I see it as nothing but a gimmick & a bit artificial in a way.
I didn’t like what I saw at Melbourne in the DRS assisted passes, OK not everyone who used DRS made a pass but when they did they looked ridiculously easy & in the one’s i saw they were past the other car before they even got to the turn 1 braking zone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6VXTUflIlY
Giving speed boost’s to cars behind just because there behind is ridiclous & I think the argument that it just removes the disadvantage of the dirty air is equally ridiculous.
If a car has driven a better race & finds himself ahead of a faster car then why should be then be penalised just for been ahead & just because a car behind may be faster?
What if the car behind made a mistake to find himself behind or because his team got the strategy wrong?
I think the DRS is as bad as weight penaltys used in touring cars & the ridiculous ‘no blocking’ rules used in indycar & Champcar where the lead car is not allowed to defend his/her position & which went as far as Champcar drawing white lines down the middle of the tracks.
If a race is decided via a DRS pass or worse still if a championship is decided via a DRS pass then I will feel the results were somewhat artificial & that will only harm my love for F1.
Nullius
31st March 2011, 2:27
There is nothing F1 can take from Nascar racing – surely the most monotonous and tedious form of motorsport ever invented.
As for the changes in F1, constant tweaking of the rules is annoying to those of us who follow the game year on year. But given the ingenuity of engineers, the cars do need to be slowed down. My proposal would be to make the cars race on a fixed amount of fuel – say 150 litres, with the amount reducing each year, perhaps by 20 litres each season. To compensate, teams should be allowed to gather energy from braking and elsewhere as much as they please. With a constraint like that the cars won’t go too fast, and the engineers will be eager to find new ways to recover energy and save drag.
wasiF1 (@wasif1)
31st March 2011, 3:23
DRS won’t work when you make two match cars,if the car in front is slower like half a second then you may use DRS & overtake him.Australia didn’t had a long straight so it will be interesting to see in places like China & Malaysia where there are two main straight. I guess if the FIA allows to use DRS at the back straight of those circuit then we may see a different race of overtaking prior to Australia.
The Limit
31st March 2011, 3:54
I’m not so sure Jimmie Johnson has that much of a right to take a swipe at F1. Afterall, NASCAR throws competition cautions all the time to ‘tighten up’ the field, and has full course cautions for just debris. Although there is plenty to admire about NASCAR, you cannot tell me that it is not contrived to a certain extent. As per usual, another stock car driver has to mock open wheel racing, and F1 especially. Its such a poor sport ofcourse, it only attracts several billion each year in terms of viewing audiences. Thats worldwide, you know, outside Kentucky!
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 16:17
I think you are overplaying JJ’s intention here when you say he is mocking open wheel racing and F1 especially…and you are overplaying it when you say ‘as per usual, another stock car driver’…can you please name the other drivers who have been out there mocking open wheel racing and F1 especially? I’d like to read those quotes…
You are absolutely right that no series is innocent when it comes to contriving things for the sake of the show, but when half the world of F1 fans are mocking F1 for having too many gimmicks, and virtually all of them are mocking Bernie for his suggestion of sprinklers around the tracks which has only garnered head shaking and laughter from all I have read about this topic, I think JJ is only echoing what a lot of racing fans of all stripes would acknowlege…they’d rather their drivers not have a steering wheel full of gimmicks…they’d rather know it was the driver and his car that won, not the one who pushed a button at the right time…
And all JJ is saying is he is glad Nascar hasn’t gone that route…I don’t recall him saying their series was perfect though…
Ben
31st March 2011, 8:41
I watched the Indycar race on Sunday and loved the double file restarts. The first corner crash would have happened regardless of the new procedure as races always start side by side.
As for the other interruptions, crashing is discretionary.
For a TV and trackside spectacle it was great as you got multiple ‘first corners’ throughout the race
Boost (@boost)
31st March 2011, 10:12
Before DRS:
Faster drivers/cars often couldn´t pass slower cars because of turbulence behind car, dirty track outside race line etc.
Fans had to wait for pit stops or for the driver in front to do a mistake.
With DRS:
If a driver can´t keep up his speed in front, DRS gives a faster driver the chance to pass a slower driver without making fans endure boring laps with nothing happening while slower cars work as brakes for faster ones.
DRS artificial? I find it no less artificial watching a fast car, trapped behind a slower car forced to drive only on the race line and wait for the pit stops.
DRS unfair? I find it no less unfair that a faster car is trapped behind a slower one because of the turbulence he gets and the other part of the track has too much dirt and too little grip. Why can´t the car in front also get some turbulence so they are on even grounds boohoo *sob* ;)
Before DRS you got penalized if you raced your way close to somebody.
Today with DRS, you get penalized because you let somebody catch up with you.
If you think you´re fast, simply don´t let the one behind catch up.
DRS made me enjoy F1 even more the last weekend, yay!
Amatures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Th-Bf9zGgY&feature=fvst
Daniel Chico
31st March 2011, 13:19
I completely agree!
larkim
31st March 2011, 11:13
The point about DRS mid-race is that it is intended to solve the problem that a driver behind can take 0.5-1.0s per lap out of the driver in front for several laps, cruise up behind them, and then (in a faster package of driver / car / tyres) get completely stalled because of an aero feature of the car in front.
DRS is intended to artifically allow the guy behind to retain the same advantage that he has had over the past few laps, which he has now lost due to no fault of his own.
If he is then skillful, daring, clever enough to overtake using that advantage, then he’ll take a place. It’ll be one he’s earned, because up to that point he was significantly faster than the guy in front. If he can’t then tough!
As others have said, its imperfect because it can only work on the straights, when lots of the disadvantages that the chasing driver has to overcome are experienced in the high speed / high downforce corners. But its much easier (and safer) to allow reduced drag on the straight than it would be to add additional downforce for the corners, so its a solution I support.
Matt
capt.wilko
31st March 2011, 11:19
Personally I don’t like KERS or DRS as they are simply fake racing. People say that rev increses (like BMW and others used to do a few years ago) or push-to-pass on the old turbo era cars are the same, but with those systems you were pushing the existing engines to and beyond the limit. KERS and DRS are specifically added onto the cars, to my mind this makes them part of fake racing.
If they are going to use KERS and DRS, let the drivers use them all the time instead of limiting – that would certainly add something watching the drivers manager that.
antonyob
31st March 2011, 11:51
a turbo is no more or less a part of the engine than kers, they both use otherwise wasted energy to generate more power.
that 1 person makes a rather ill informed subjective decision to separate them is frankly irrelevant.
the use of the words “fake racing” is basically a put down to anybody who doesnt believe your dubious opinion to be correct. Snobbery basically.
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 16:57
You mean, like your attitude toward Nascar?
Coefficient
31st March 2011, 13:46
It is not the DRS itself that is the problem as such. Rather, the problem lies in the restriction of its use. The contrived nature of the regulations regarding its deployment make it feel as though overtakes are being stage managed as one N. Lauda pointed out on the BBC F1 forum on Sunday.
The simple solution would be to put the timing loops in the bin and let all the drivers use it as much as the like, wherever they like throughout the weekend. This would be more like the “Turbo Boost” button of yore. The decision to use it was down to the driver in those days and this factor should be introduced for the DRS to improve the show and the racing simultaneously.
Not only would overtakes be attempted at more places on the circuit, they would also be less predictable. Also, as in the old days of the H Pattern Gear Box and Clutch Pedals, driver error would begin to play a part as drivers desperate to defend/overtake would be in danger of activating the DRS at the wrong moment and fall back from their prey or indeed the prey could hit the button too late and the predator would be all over them. It could even cause race ending spins if used in the wrong place which would certainly make the Yankee audience take more interest.
We would also see the likes of Hamilton attempting moves in unusual corners. Such moves would then go down in history as kamikaze classics along with the Schumi/Hakk/Zonta 3 abreast into Les Coombe in 2000 and Alonso around the outside of Schumacher in 130R at Suzuka in 2005.
Either give the drivers control of their cars entirely or we might as well bring back TC and LC, heaven forbid!
larkim
31st March 2011, 14:13
I’d love to agree, but I can’t.
Like it or not, F1 has now got the stage where it either has to go technologically backwards, or introduce artificial aspects to maintain interest. Any F1 designer now could design a car which is insanely fast, very reliable and cannot be overtaken. The FIA has a really tough job of trying to keep F1 at the technological pinnacle of open wheel racing, whilst at the same time allowing for competition.
To get back to great racing, we’d need to ditch ceramic disc brakes, reverse tyre progress and build engines that work so close to the extremes that they disappear in a puff of smoke every other race. That’s not going to happen.
The real shame is that humans remain capable of controlling these vehicles, seemingly with some ease. If (like marathon runners) each driver was on the absolute limit of their physical and psychological capabilities, we might have more mistakes providing opportunities for overtaking. But whilst tech has made it easier for them on the one hand, on the other hand they are able to withstand the insane acceleration and braking effects and still concentrate (has to be applauded from a safety perspective of course!).
F1 will never be like the 60s, 70s or 80s again. Its a shame, but that’s just the way it is.
Matt
Coefficient
31st March 2011, 15:47
Nonesense! To go backwards would be more boring! I have never pined for the old days like some. It’s gone as have my youthful good looks and thick dark hair. We all must accept this.
I love the modern look and feel of F1. It still refuses to forgive the tiniest error, same as always. The main difference nowadays is the fact that mistakes are less frequent as teams and drivers are more professional. As such, freedom to use DRS at will would be ideal because F1 succeeds and fails on margins of milliseconds. So, the activation of the DRS by a fraction of a second too early/late could cause havoc. It would be so hard to judge in a battle that lasted lap after lap as we saw with JB and FM on Sunday that only the most judicious use of the device would see a driver prevail.
If the drivers were given freedom to deploy DRS as they choose it would prove a tricky device to master and no mistake, especially in close combat. I’ve posted a similar comment on James Allen’s website and he personally agreed with me and thinks we will probably see this tested before the end of the season.
Some may worry that spins could cause dangerous crashes. Perhaps that’s true. If so, I’m sure it would be a simple task for an F1 engineer to write some software that would prohibit the use of the DRS until the black box had detected that the car was out of the traction limited phase of a corner.
larkim
31st March 2011, 17:27
But your solution takes away the expertise!? If there was software controlling when DRS could kick in, drivers could just punch the DRS button as soon as they liked, knowing the computer would solve it for them.
I do in part agree with you – adding more driver operated features which boost (or hinder) performance tests the skill of the driver in how he uses them. e.g. see Schumacher a few years ago, I believe he pioneered the concept of routine brake balance adjustments lap after lap after lap (you could always see him doing it in the in-car shots, no-one else appeared to)
But ever since the ground effect cars in the 70s the FIA has been battling with making cars slower for safety reasons. If you give every driver the same features to use, all that will happen is that they will all get a little faster. Some will make mistakes, but they’ll gradually learn, and then the FIA will have to come along and make the cars slower again.
For me F1 isn’t all about the overtaking, or even wheel to wheel swashbuckling racing. Its a combination of the “best” drivers in the “best” cars. Unfortunately in today’s world that means focussed, robotic drivers driving cars that are almost impossible to overtake because the braking zone is so small, and the best cars all perform within a very small percentage of each other. If I want to watch ballsy overtaking, I watch Formula Ford or F3 at my local track.
I support DRS, and like the implementation of it, certainly in Melbourne. It certainly didn’t make a mockery of the race, and didn’t give anyone an easy overtake. Whether it will work throughout the world, I don’t know.
Matt
Coefficient
1st April 2011, 12:19
I disagree with your opening statement. Your statement implies that my suggesiton would allow the drivers to drive around with their thumb on the button and the computer would open and close the flap where appropriate. That is not the idea at all. The computer would merely enable the use of the device when wheelspin was down to around +5% and would give no indication to the driver as to whether DRS is available. The driver would still have to press the button judiciously in order for it to function. Any early pressing of the button would simply be ignored by the system.
The problem with the existing set up is that the impression given to the viewing public is that Race Control are giving consent to overtaking attempts effectively. The driver should be making all the decisions regarding car control, every aspect throughout each and every lap. I totally agree with Niki Lauda on this. DRS could be really exciting but as it stands its a bit tame, half hearted and frankly its a bit patronising that the F1 bosses think the viewing public need to have the DRS device spoon fed to them by telling them where to look for it.
BasCB (@bascb)
1st April 2011, 12:31
Coefficient, with your solution it takes away part of the driver skill. We might as well give them traction control again, that makes them less likely to lose control as well.
Exaclty the opposite of what I like to see. I want the drivers to have to judge, when they can put the wing off and apply KERS etc. That is what shows us the individual drivers skills.
Patrickl (@patrickl)
2nd April 2011, 20:22
That idea doesn’t work because if they all can use it then whazt good does it do?
antonyob
31st March 2011, 13:52
spot on larkim.
In the end tho, the FIA wants people talking about F1, if they can find a controversial but not downright stupid idea to put in ( see rain on tracks and other Bernie “ideas”) then they will.
I personally think Kers is brilliant because it does give an advantage but the fastest car on the grid hasnt got it! perfect. you fast here, me fast there. isnt that what we wanted? but it will also, hopefully give a clearer link between road cars and f1 cars. there did used to be one you know.
Alex Bkk
31st March 2011, 13:53
Dear Jimmy Bob boy… movable wings create less drag, not more power. Duh!
I want to thank f1fanatic, WordPress, Microsoft, Dell Computers, Signo external keyboards, MD Tech, True Internet connections, Singha Beer, my good friend Buddy Mac who translates NASCAR speak for me and the Baby Lord Jesus for allowing me to respond to this article.
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 16:26
But KERS creates more power…that was probably what he meant…his point being he is glad Nascar doesn’t have a steering wheel full of buttons, nor do they have moveable wings…he isn’t saying Nascar is perfect, just that he is glad they don’t have those things that he has highlighted, and that without them they still have close racing…
And I wouldn’t mock Nascar for being reliant on sponsors…all series are, including F1, and Nascar just happens to have promotion down to a fine art, and their philosophy on it is get the name out there, get the name out there, get the name out there, say it lots and lots and lots…that’s their duty to their sponsors who are paying their way…
They are so good at it that they make as much if not more money than F1 drivers, even though their audience is not global like that of F1…
Back when Jeff Gordon and Juan Pablo Montoya traded paint several years ago at the US GP, JG taking a spin in the Williams of JPM, and JPM taking a spin in JG’s car, someone asked Sir Frank Williams what he thought of the concept of Jeff Gordon going to F1…his response…F1 can’t afford Jeff Gordon…
antonyob
31st March 2011, 16:18
comparing nascar to f1 is like comparing a cauliflower to a horse. preposterous.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
31st March 2011, 16:26
They may be as different as two forms of motor racing can get but they’re both four-wheeled motorsports and they’re both competing for the attention of motor racing fans – particularly when F1 returns to the USA next year.
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 16:30
Agreed…both have their pluses and minuses…both are constantly tweeking things for the show…both have done very well for themselves…
Just another point after reading so many generalizations about Nascar on this thread…many Nascar drivers and team members are huge racing fans too, and go out of their way to watch all the F1 races they can…they also have a ton of respect for F1 drivers…
slackbladder
2nd April 2011, 3:06
LOL, love it sounds like a ‘Jeremy Clarkson’
antonyob
31st March 2011, 16:38
nascar is like those late night shows on channel 5 “when driving goes bad.” F1 is like a night at the opera in comparison
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 16:52
Lol, I’m sure one could highlight many an F1 incident that also looked like ‘when driving goes bad’, and I’m sure that many people don’t like opera either…too much drama from prima donnas with their superior noses in the air all the while behind our backs stealing secrets, cheating, backstabbing, crashing intentionally to manipulate the results…
antonyob
31st March 2011, 17:00
absolutely Robbie there was method behind my choosing Opera. f1 can be right up its own preverbial. hicks vs twits it probably is
Robbie (@robbie)
31st March 2011, 17:15
Fair enough…and don’t get me wrong…I’ve been an F1 fan since before Gilles Villeneuve caused F1 racing to be televised nationally in Canada starting in the late 70’s, even though F1 already had the Canadian GP at Mosport prior to Gilles getting his opportunity in F1…it is my racing series of choice, but for years now I have followed Nascar too…just not as closely…
antonyob
1st April 2011, 12:36
note to ed:-
as Basc has very helpfully just done, can we not request politely that posters put the name of the person they are addressing before they reply. kinda helps with stuff like “absolute rubbish” or “brilliant reply” but really anything
thanks
slackbladder
2nd April 2011, 2:54
Here’s my 2 cents for what it’s worth.
Get rid of kers, it’s silly to say kers technology will help the automotive industry with future technology with little or no testing is allowed! F1 is not a open for improvement when every thing else can’t be changed or suffer the penalties like the Sauber team just did. Let the drivers choose when to use DRS, and lets get back to drivers driving the cars not some F1 rule book committee gutting the sport can we? F1 is a passion for many, many people, it is the penultimate expression of man machine working as one. In my opinion the FIA, Bernie and FIFA are pencil pushing F1 into a boring safe banality that is F1 in name only. Favourite F1 memory, standing next to the ‘track’ in the grounds of Longleat house at the age of 9 hands over ears watching the cars wiz by!
Sadly, F1 has lost much over the years, and will continue toward the ‘vanilla pudding’ end of things if the sport is left to the FIA, FIFA and the politically correct movement!